Secret DARPA Mind Control Project Is Real: Leaked Document - Narrative Disruptors And Inductors

Originally posted by Phage
It was a yes or no question about wartime anti-nazi propaganda just as your question was a yes or no question about pro-nazi propaganda.

No it wasn't. You're more than welcome to expound at length on the question. Nowhere did I ask you to state "Yes or No."

"Persuasive Speech" and "Propaganda"--especially of any electronic sort, are worlds apart imo.

I disagree.

Well, to be honest, I can't see that as making me the foolish or ill-informed one.

reply to post by WhiteAlice

If it smells like propaganda, it's still going to be detected as American propaganda and relying on mental trickery is just going to get shut down the moment it starts.

I agree.
But something good just might result from the research into how our brains work.

reply to post by The GUT

Well, to be honest, I can't see that as making me the foolish or ill-informed one.

I accused you of neither. Your ad hom is not subtle.

reply to post by tetra50

DARPA's been right up in the middle of that, too. What you say, how you say it, and many, many "scientific" programs related to getting you to say it.

Brrrr.

Somehow that is the single freakiest statement I've seen on this thread.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by WhiteAlice

 

If it smells like propaganda, it's still going to be detected as American propaganda and relying on mental trickery is just going to get shut down the moment it starts.

I agree.
But something good just might result from the research into how our brains work.

Not denying the coolness of the knowledge of how our brain works but the knowledge, the desire plus the added dash of "national security", could quickly turn that knowledge into something of seriously dubious ethics (albeit still better than torture with waterboarding or Barney).

Originally posted by Phage

Well, to be honest, I can't see that as making me the foolish or ill-informed one.

I accused you of neither. Your ad hom is not subtle.

Not an ad hominen, exactly, by definition. We can clear that up, too, if you wish, but I see no need: I see your basic point and offer my sincere apologies.

reply to post by WhiteAlice

But. But. Didn't you just say it's unlikely to work?

reply to post by elouina

Interesting elouina I have heard of this, people do go on about it on this site. Ya its possible and you don't even need any fancy equipment, you could do it using simple words even, or you can do it using no words even. I have done it a few times, even on this site you know "persuaded" things in certain ways, mostly thought toward the more funny and cat video induced ways, the rest? It is kind of you know..My bad! # happens. But all forms of communication in there own way and right have an effect on both the physical brain and the mind and mental constructs there in, we are all guilty of that to one degree or another.

Do you ever ask yourself why there is a bad guy or a good guy in all stories? If not you should the good guy bad buy narrative is used a lot to influence and persuade in not only what you think, but how you are able to think. By themselves all the tech and mind waves will do absolutely nothing but confuse or comatose a person, and the mind does work by digressing and digesting stories, storytelling itself is a sort of programing in ways, narratives in the brain are tied to narratives in the mind. And they are as different as the fact that the mind and the brain are different yet the same thing.

The very way you communicate changes the chemistry of the brain, ie if you even use different lingo it will do that over time, hence differences between the religious mind and the scientific mind. Is on part for the lingo and words they use. What I think these groups and people are trying to find out is what makes one special and tuns peoples minds and the others merely just stories and passable, who directs this rudder and how can they get in on it, to sort of say. Merely a matter of timing I suppose, but that to is not really true either.

In effect any changes to anything be it physical changes in brain chemistry or the wetware or software of that such as thoughts and the way we think does and will result in prolonged stages which can sometimes be beneficial but more often not. And in some case's its like throwing a kid into the sea to try and get him to learn to swim. I can attest it is not all that fun, and there are better ways if albeit they do not produce the same results, but once its done going back is not likely.

Narrative disruptors? well its all a matter of how you apply it. One would reach a conclusion, the other would probably try to communicate by shooting microwaves and soundwaves at unhealthy vibration levels such as 24hz straight into you thereby giving you a massive case of the diarrhea. That and you can to an effect change the bioelctrical processes in the brain not by using a specific gadget or device but by the culmination of them over periods of time, you could even create a whole atmosphere of these waves world wide unbeknownst. And its simple every day devices such as cellphones and that computer your using. So ya it all does have a cumulative effect on human biological processes, making people think in certain patterns or installing fears are the least of it.

Not that I have anything against the diarrhea gun, or any of that, especially the diarrhea gun I think its a good idea for stopping mass conflict after all cant fight or think when your #ting you pants. I was just drawing parallels. Coincidentally I have started reading a book called Valis some days ago, its kind of boring and pointless so far and seems a bit on the depressing side. Oh which I have decided some months ago that I would stick to stories which have happy endings. And from what I read some few pages so far this story looks like it would have a convergent ending full of lose ties which will be full of inconsistency. Of which I am starting to think that not having a happy ending may be a plot failure on the authors part if anything, but that is debatable. But you know everybody was always going on about it so I thought I would see what it is about. And it seems to be about this very subject in a ways, and not only that it seems a greater part of the populous thinks in terms there in. As always I was not informed till recently.

Personally I would not be messing around with such things just like I would not be messing around with drugs which induce and change the chemical makeup of the brain, I would caution against it. But people are free to do as they will. After all it will only effect them. In truth am only reading this thread because of a former silly internet friend thinks its important, and likes to communicate by dropping hints which I do not even bother to read. Everything is important in its time I suppose, for me however its out of that time. Informative thread none the less.

Technological Feasibilities: Microwave Auditory Effect

The microwave auditory effect, also known as the microwave hearing effect or the Frey effect, consists of audible clicks (or, with modulation, whole words) induced by pulsed/modulated microwave frequencies. The clicks are generated directly inside the human head without the need of any receiving electronic device.

The effect was first reported by persons working in the vicinity of radar transponders during World War II. These induced sounds are not audible to other people nearby. The microwave auditory effect was later discovered to be inducible with shorter-wavelength portions of the electromagnetic spectrum.

During the Cold War era, the American neuroscientist Allan H. Frey studied this phenomenon and was the first to publish[1] information on the nature of the microwave auditory effect.

Dr. Don R. Justesen published "Microwaves and Behavior" in The American Psychologist (Volume 30, March 1975, Number 3).

The existence of non-lethal weaponry that exploits the microwave auditory effect appears to have been classified "Secret NOFORN" in the USA from (at the latest) 1998, until the declassification on 6 December 2006 of "Bioeffects of Selected Non-Lethal Weaponry" in response to a FOIA request. Application of the microwave hearing technology could facilitate a private message transmission.

Quoting from the above source, "Microwave hearing may be useful to provide a disruptive condition to a person not aware of the technology. Not only might it be disruptive to the sense of hearing, it could be psychologically devastating if one suddenly heard "voices within one's head".

The technology gained further public attention when a company announced in early 2008 that they were close to fielding a device called MEDUSA (Mob Excess Deterrent Using Silent Audio) based on the principle.

en.wikipedia.org...

Note that this technology is ascribed in the above article as "non-lethal weaponry." That's an important distinction in understanding this topic.

reply to post by Phage

Or perhaps it is something hardwired. Like language. Something which evolution gave us.

Storytellers are held in high regard in all cultures, aren't they? Could it be that effective storytelling has survival advantages?

I agree. For what it is worth, one of the first things that I thought after a read through of their proposal was that it all must be predicated upon what Chomsky called universal grammar.

Universal grammar (UG) is a theory in linguistics, usually credited to Noam Chomsky, proposing that the ability to learn grammar is hard-wired into the brain.

The theory suggests that linguistic ability manifests itself without being taught, and that there are properties that all natural human languages share.

I also agree with you that this is nothing new, and I think that maybe the fastest way, sometimes, for people to make inroads to understanding something new is to compare it to something old. We tried to do that with that witchcraft/network security thread.

Phage, bear with me, this stuff really is complex, and it's hard to communicate to people why there should be any concern. It's just stories, after all, and it's just psychology, and what kind of a weapon can be made from that, right?

Myself and others have found that it can be useful to put all of this in to the context of generational warfare. In the 80s the military set up a think tank to research how war was changing. General William Lind and his group decided on a generational model for the development of how war was conducted throughout recorded history. Check the link for more detail.

Again, it's nothing new. Fourth generation warfare was seen by Lind as a return to decentralized forms of warfare.

The simplest definition includes any war in which one of the major participants is not a state but rather a violent non-state actor. Classical examples, such as the slave uprising under Spartacus or the assassination of Julius Caesar by members of the Roman senate, predate the modern concept of warfare and are examples of this type of conflict.

Just a few years ago, the idea came up as to whether or not we have entered an era of Fifth generation warfare (5GW). And the debate has continued since, for about 5 or 6 years. Whether or not Lind's model was right or wrong, it provided, and still provides, a framework within which to discuss the way warfare has changed since the beginning of the Epoch of Unix (the coming of gigantor-sized computer networks).

There is a whole new lexicon that comes with discussing it, with terms like Moral Center of Gravity (MOG), as in "Hitting the enemy in his MOG". You can read a good article here for instance...

Fifth-Generation Warfare
Are we reinventing the wheel?

www.mca-marines.org...

Long story short, in a 5GW theatre of warfare, narrative context is seen as a terrain to be conquered and controlled. The way that constituents operating within a field of context are 'neutralized', is by targeting their emotions via their perception of the contextual terrain.

Everything old becomes new again. And then old again. I don't know if you read that Welcome to Planet Salem thread, but, at least in part, the idea was that what seemed all-in-our-minds, namely, witchcraft, had been made very real thanks to the power of widely distributed computer networks and ready-at-hand "network-security tools". It's the same deal here; sort of like the vorpal-bunny, "But it's just a fluffy bunny". "No!, don't go near that thing!", but too late, fluffy-vorpal-narrative bunny has lopped off your head.

Alright, I'm starting to run down. Must go do more homework.

I also like where you are going with the storytellers thing. Whenever all of this comes up I can't help but think about the Meistersingers and the Troubadours.

Sure control over narrative ability, story telling, could be an aid to being a succesful organism. Programs like the one linked to in the OP are about fashioning it in to a club.

reply to post by Bybyots

Programs like the one linked to in the OP are about fashioning it in to a club.

Or a shield.

Originally posted by BlueMule
I wonder how many people in this thread are working for the gov't... trained to debunk? Probably at least two. Phage and Drucilla seem like likely candidates.

/shrug

if so they're too obvious,
fact of the matter , they're transhumanists
as for their probable agendas, think:

"resistance is futile, you will be assimilated"

Originally posted by Phage
And that is what this research is about. Understanding why people can believe what people tell them based on nothing but the way the story is told.

Unless I've misunderstood, the study does not take into account the social conditioning buildup and social ocean immersed within... and focuses on the mechanical aspects immediately observable.

So no, it is NOT what the research is about... the research is about what is the physical structure of those who believe what people tell them based on nothing but the way the story is told... not how they came to be that way in the same way you can observe the structure of steel without spending any time exploring the development of steel.

This is the fundamental issue with itemized research. A valuable tool of research... and even more valuable tool of "left hand not being aware of right hand" mind control... and even more valuable tool of divide and conquer.

But I have been conditioned well enough to not take to task the condition of the poster.

/namasalute

reply to post by ErgoTheEgo

Unless I've misunderstood, the study does not take into account the social conditioning buildup and social ocean immersed within... and focuses on the mechanical aspects immediately observable.

You're correct.

It's the "hardware" that is being studied. Not the "software". The study will try to determine what, if any, specific parts of the brain are involved with attention to narrative. It seems that it will also try to determine if something different happens in the brain with persuasive narrative. That was my point.

The software is of course very important but this is a physiological study, not a psychological study. Perhaps that will negate any results.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Bybyots

 

Programs like the one linked to in the OP are about fashioning it in to a club.

Or a shield.

Right, nevermind, that's now the single freakiest comment I've seen on this thread.

Shield who? Shield us?

Shield us against what, Phage, bad ideas? Dangerous ideologies? Doesn't a good education system and mass public discourse give your population a natural immunity to BS, and isn't that a preferable approach to truncating your citizens through narrative control and justifying it with a protectionist stance?

reply to post by Eidolon23

Sorry. Was that too metaphorical?

From the proposal

Humans are storytelling beings. There is no clearer evidence of this than the struggles of the United States government to convince world populations of its good intentions, and to dissuade key constituencies from the powerful narratives told by violent extremists.

www.scribd.com...
It's something that Corman, the lead, and others have been writing about for a while. Why doesn't our propaganda work against extremists? Why do they believe their leaders so strongly that they will commit suicide to kill a few infidels?

The bold was supposed to end inside the quote. Don't know what happened.

edit on 7/30/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by Phage
The software is of course very important but this is a physiological study, not a psychological study. Perhaps that will negate any results.

/salute

I hope that at some point someone more clever and useful than I is able to create a coherent relationship between the development and the structure. I see kids lied to constantly in order to sustain a false narrative and there is no doubt it is having a genuine structural influence. Just because some materials are more resilient than others doesn't mean we should ignore the ever present force attempting to degrade.

I feel I can intuit it in meaningful ways, but my time is spent on other aspects of exploring the development and influence of minds (video games) and right now I'm relatively disappointed with my field. We'll see if the seeds I see able to focus more on informing versus distracting/manipulating are ever able to germinate.

Originally posted by CIAGypsy

Originally posted by LoneCloudHopper2

Has anyone ever done a study to determine what percentage of scientists are either sociopathic, psychotic or downright insane? With the exception of one nice teacher I had who was a scientist (he turned down prestigious job offers because he loved to teach,) every single scientist that I have spoken with (mostly online) or observed speaking with others seems to fit the label 'mad scientist' pretty well. How many scientists online will batter Christians and call religion 'the root of all evil,' while they themselves are either a part of, or are otherwise endorsing harmful medicines, warfare technology, mind control methods, etc? How many scientists have we heard call religious people "hypocrites," from a moral position of judgement of their own, while they promote lies and harmful science against the human race?

Wow, talk about a narrow minded and judgmental post....

I am a scientist, engineer, inventor, and business owner. I am neither sociopathic, psychotic, or insane. I have created devices that have helped countless people. I am motivated by a desire to help humanity...and guess what? I believe in God and am a very spiritual individual. There is no conflict between science and faith. Science explains the "how" not the "why."

Are you one of those people who lets their kid die from preventable illnesses because you refuse to take them to the doctor? If not, then you and your family have benefited from the very science that you spit upon.

I read a post of yours and figured you'd be offended by it lol. I've known people to call artists eccentrics and mentally ill, and being an artist, I of course found this offensive. I understand why you would be offended. I was being honest, so it is what it is. Of course science has done a lot of good as well as bad, but I haven't known many good scientists personally. It's good to meet another good one, is all I can say.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Eidolon23

 

Sorry. Was that too metaphorical?

Ha. That was a good one.

No, it wasn't.

The better educated a population is, the less vulnerable they are to virulent extremism. The narrative twerking would require homogenizing your target group and selling them your narrative, which if they are already disenfranchised or inclined to butthurt over US military actions is probably not going to work anyway. You're like a clubbed trout, dude, this is rocking your world so hard you're actually falling back on raw patriotism.

Don't worry, you'll catch up.

reply to post by Eidolon23

You're like a clubbed trout, dude, this is rocking your world so hard you're actually falling back on raw patriotism.

Can you point out where I have expressed any patriotism in this thread?
I quoted the stated objective of this "secret DARPA mind control project", as specified in the "leaked" document.

Maybe it was too subtle for you but I have several times indicated my doubts that it will amount to anything.